PIL in SC seeks uniform judicial terms, abbreviations and court fees across India

New Delhi: A public interest litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court seeking directions to the Law Commission of India to prepare a comprehensive report in consultation with the apex court and all High Courts to standardise judicial terminology, abbreviations, phrases, norms, court fee structures, and case registration processes across the country.

The plea, filed by advocate Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay under Article 32 of the Constitution, alternatively sought the constitution of an expert committee or directions to the Union Law Ministry to prepare a report to ensure uniformity in judicial procedures and nomenclature.

The petition, which has arrayed the Union government, the Secretary General of the Supreme Court, the Registrars General of all High Courts, and the Law Commission of India as respondents, contended that significant variations in judicial terminology, case classifications, abbreviations, procedures and court fees across High Courts cause inconvenience to litigants, advocates and authorities, despite courts operating under the same constitutional and legal framework.

"The terminology used by different High Courts for different types of cases is not uniform. This causes inconvenience not only to the general public but also to advocates and the authorities as well," the petition stated.

It further said that even where courts deal with similar categories of cases, the terms and abbreviations used to identify them differ, making the existing system difficult to navigate.

Citing examples from various High Courts, the petition pointed out that criminal appeals are abbreviated as CRA, CR.A, CRAPL and CRL.A in different jurisdictions, while contempt appeals are referred to as CONTA, CONTAPP, CPTA, and ConApp.

The plea also highlighted variations in the classification of writ petitions, stating that the Delhi High Court has multiple categories of writ petitions, while the Gujarat High Court deals with such matters under a single category of "WRIT PETITION (PIL)".

Similarly, the petition said, the Gauhati and Himachal Pradesh High Courts have several categories of writ petitions, while the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court follows its own classification system.

It also flagged differences in the nomenclature of company matters, with COMPET used in the Gauhati High Court, COMP in the Gujarat High Court, and COP in the Himachal Pradesh High Court.

The plea referred to further inconsistencies within the Bombay High Court and its Benches at Nagpur, Aurangabad, and Panaji, arguing that different terminologies and descriptions for similar case types create difficulties for advocates practising across these jurisdictions.

According to the petition, the Bombay High Court's principal seat has 330 case types with descriptions but without abbreviations, while its Nagpur and Aurangabad benches have 77 and 61 such case types, respectively.

The petitioner also raised concerns over the absence of uniformity in court fees for similar matters of comparable valuation across different states and High Courts, arguing that such disparities adversely affect access to justice.

"Judicial equality is a matter of constitutional right, its differentiation based on the jurisdiction of courts violates the Right to Equality enshrined under Articles 14-15 of the Constitution," the plea stated.

Citing examples, the petition said that a criminal miscellaneous application under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, attracts a court fee of Rs 2.65 in the Punjab and Haryana High Court, compared with Rs 2.50 in the Delhi High Court. It further highlighted that the court fee for a first appeal in matrimonial cases is Rs 19.50 in Punjab and Chandigarh, while the same appeal attracts a fee of Rs 24.50 in Haryana.

The plea also highlighted differences in fees for transfer applications and company petitions, arguing that litigants are required to pay different amounts for similar legal proceedings depending on the jurisdiction.

"Unequal Court Fees in different States discriminate among citizens based on their place of birth and residence," the petition contended, adding that such differences also promote regionalism.

It further referred to various state-specific amendments to the Court Fees Act, 1870, arguing that the resulting disparities underscore the need for a uniform court fee structure.

The petition stated that the petitioner had submitted a representation to the Chairman of the Law Commission on September 5, seeking uniformity in judicial terminology, abbreviations, norms, phrases, court fees and case registration processes. However, claiming that the authorities had not taken steps to address the issue, the plea said the need for judicial standardisation continued to remain unaddressed.

The petitioner has sought directions for a comprehensive exercise involving the Supreme Court and all High Courts to establish uniform standards for case classifications, judicial terminology, abbreviations, court fees and registration procedures across the country.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

IANS

[email protected]